Monday, August 12, 2013

NO, THERE ISN'T "BIPARTISAN SUPPORT" FOR REFORM OF MANDATORY MINIMUMS, AT LEAST NOT IN CONGRESS

I'm happy to see this, but I wonder what the reaction will be in Washington:

In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration moved on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.

“I am encouraged that the President and Attorney General agree with me that mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders promote injustice and do not serve public safety,” Paul said in a statement.

“The Administration’s involvement in this bipartisan issue is a welcome development. Now the hard work begins to change the law to permanently address this injustice,” he added.

I found that quote in a BuzzFeed story with the headline "Bipartisan Support For Justice Department's New Drug Sentencing Reforms."

But is there "bipartisan support"? Not in D.C., as far as I can tell. Oh, sure, as The New York Timesnotes, there's support for this at the state level, particularly in (surprise) red America:

Driven in part by a need to save money, several conservative-leaning states like Texas and Arkansas have experimented with finding ways to incarcerate fewer low-level drug offenders. The answers have included reducing prison terms for them or diverting them into treatment programs, releasing elderly or well-behaved inmates early, and expanding job training and re-entry programs.

Long before Rand Paul drew national attention to his own support for sentencing reform, there was a quiet movement slowly but surely developing on the Right (which David Dagan and Steven Teles wrote about in the November/December 2012 issue of the Washington Monthly) in favor of calling off the madness of mandatory minimums. Just as importantly, this trend was being fed by various tributaries of the conservative stream, not just libertarians but conservative evangelicals and budget-conscious fiscal hawks. Just last week, in fact, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which probably contributed more to the spread of mandatory minimum legislation in the states than just about any other single source, reversed its position and endorsed sentencing reform.

So how is this going to play out? Is Holder's announcement going to spur Congress to action? Or are congressional Republicans going to stick with the "law and order" approach that's worked for them politically since the days of Nixon, and that's struck fear in the hearts of nervous Democrats all that time? Are the Republicans who've been warming to the idea of sentencing reform suddenly going to decide they're against sentencing reform now that the hated Obama administration, in the person of the hated Eric Holder, is pushing for reform? Is there going to be outrage at the administration's decision to do this using the power of the executive, which will blossom into anger at the idea of doing anything at all? Already Glenn Reynolds is writing, "I favor this policy. Not sure about implementing it via executive fiat," while National Review has this:

Congress, Not DOJ, Should Address Minimum Sentences

... And as for those "draconian" minimum sentences, isn't this a matter for Congress to resolve? Isn't Mr. Holder's announced plan just the latest of this administration's many efforts to ignore the laws as they are written?

If the laws need to be changed then by all means change them, but do not pretend they don't exist or that you are not bound by them.

Um, you Republicans could solve this by helping to pass a bill. But you won't, will you? You certainly won't now that the policy is associated with Holder. Will you?

Victor, You said["Jayzoon, to buy a cold medication nowaday's, you need far more regulatory oversight than buying a AR-15!"]

Who's Jayzoon? ;-)I have to agree with the sentiment though. Not all crimes are equal(ly horrendous).I can imagine all the republican brains(?) exploding on this concept.The realization that life isn't binary(black or white, rather it's (50 hmmm?)shades of grey. The brighter lights in the party would see that the implications of this might mean that their beliefs might not be so inviolate. It might mean they need to factor in contexts and that might tax some of their mentalities too hard. Heaven forbid that the 'rank' and file might might evolve to think and see the flaws in what the powers that be tell them. And where would civilization be then?Mind you Trading (saving) more money for illegal actions isn't new to the self-serving.